Dear Sir,
FOI REQUEST 178
You made a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following information relating to
all outside police force investigations requested by the WYOPCC since 1 December 2012:
Date requested
Force (or policing body) appointed to investigate
Operational name
Terms of reference
Budget agreed
Date finalised
Final cost
I can provide the attached information relating to 6 outside police force investigations in response to
your request as follows:
1. Greater Manchester Police.
2. Cleveland Constabulary.
3. Northumbria Police.
4. Cleveland Constabulary.
5. Lancashire Constabulary.
6. Lancashire Constabulary.
It is important to note that the conduct investigations relating to documents 2, 3 and 4
found no evidence of misconduct and the investigation relating to document 6 is
incomplete.
I am very sorry for the delay in providing this information to you. This has resulted from
consideration of the public interest in this disclosure, including consideration of objections to
disclosure.
A further document relating to an investigation undertaken by Lancashire Constabulary has been
withheld from this disclosure and further information is provided below.
Some information has been redacted in the attached documents because we believe exemptions
apply. Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act requires us to state which exemptions apply
and the reasons why we believe they apply.
We consider that exemptions apply as follows:-
Section 40(2)(b)– Personal Information
Section 31(1)(g) by virtue of S31(2) – Law Enforcement
Section 31(1)(c) – Law Enforcement
Section 43(2) – Commercial Interests
Section 40(2)(b)– Personal Information
The information contained in the terms of reference is subject to the provisions of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Within this, the data needs to be processed fairly and lawfully, obtained
only for a specified and lawful purpose and compatible with it; adequate, relevant and not excessive
in relation to the purposes for which it is processed; it must be accurate and be processed in
accordance with the rights of the data subjects (Schedule 1, Part 1). Personal Information can only
be disclosed if it does not breach one of the principles of the DPA. The first principle of the DPA
requires information to be processed fairly and lawfully.
Information has been redacted where disclosure will breach principle 1 of the DPA, the duty to
process information fairly and lawfully. The following factors have been taken into account in
reaching this decision.
The information held is sensitive personal information within the scope of the DPA as it concerns the
alleged commission of offences or alleged misconduct. Sensitive personal information may only be
disclosed if one of the conditions of Schedule 2 and one of the conditions of Schedule 3 of the DPA
are also satisfied.
Disclosure of sensitive personal information would be likely to cause harm and distress to the data
subjects and is likely to lead to, or to increase, intrusion into the individual’s private and family lives.
This is particularly relevant to information which is now dated and where disclosure is likely to lead
to renewed public comment.
Whilst the information held relates to individual’s professional lives and there would, therefore, be
some expectation of disclosure, in circumstances where officers or staff have now left the police
service and are no longer in public facing roles this expectation would reasonably be lower.
Some information relates to senior police officers who will have a greater expectation that their
personal information will be disclosed but more junior officers and members of the public would
have a high expectation that their personal information would not be disclosed.
In considering whether disclosure is likely to breach the DPA we have also taken into account the
fact that some information is routinely published by the Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner in relation to complaints and conduct matters relating to the Chief Constable and we
have also taken account of information which is already in the public domain either by media
reporting or via court records.
Sensitive personal information may only be disclosed if at least one condition in Schedule 3 and at
least one condition in Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act are also met.
Schedule 3 conditions which are relevant to the disclosure of sensitive personal information are:
explicit consent (condition 1) and information already being made public by the data subject
(condition 5)
Schedule 2 conditions which are relevant to the disclosure of sensitive personal information are:
consent (condition 1) and disclosure necessary for the legitimate interests pursued by the Police and
Crime Commissioner (PCC) or the third parties to whom disclosure is made except where this leads
to unwarranted prejudice to the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject
(condition 6).
In considering disclosure of sensitive personal information we have taken account of any objections
to disclosure and the legitimate public interest relating to the role and actions of the PCC as the
person responsible for holding the Chief Constable to account for providing an efficient and effective
police service as well as the legitimate public interest in the use of public funds and the effectiveness
of the police complaints and conduct processes. We have concluded that, where-ever possible, it is
in the public interest to publish information about investigations into police complaints and conduct.
The Police and Crime Commissioner is mindful, however, that the investigation related to
document 6 in this disclosure, investigation by Lancashire Constabulary into anonymous
allegations made against the ex-Chief Constable Mark Gilmore, that the investigation is
incomplete and, furthermore, that Mr Gilmore refutes the allegations made in the strongest
terms.
This exemption is absolute and does not require a public interest test.
S31(1)(g) by virtue of S31(2) – Law Enforcement
This exemption applies to the disclosure of information relating to document 1 of this disclosure,
Greater Manchester Police’s investigation.
The information is held by the PCC in connection with his responsibilities under the Police Reform
and Social Responsibility Act 2011 which requires the PCC to ensure that the police force is efficient
and effective and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of his functions, including
dealing with all conduct or complaint matters regarding the Chief Constable.
Specifically, the information is held for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to
comply with the law and whether any person is responsible for conduct which is improper.
This exemption requires a prejudice test and a public interest test.
Test of Prejudice
The three stage test has been applied as follows:
Identifying the applicable interests. The applicable interest is in the PCC undertaking his
duty to ascertain whether any person has failed to comply with the law and whether any
person is responsible for conduct which is improper. In this case the PCC engaged Greater
Manchester Police to undertake an investigation into this case on his behalf.
Identifying the nature of the prejudice. The prejudice is in harming law enforcement
investigations and judicial processes, specifically harm to further investigations and to the
criminal review process. This refers not only to the investigation identified within the terms
of reference but also to other, subsequent, investigations or processes which have arisen as
a result of Operation Lamp and which may rely on the information contained within the
documents held by the OPCC.
Identifying the likelihood of prejudice. Prejudice is likely to occur on the basis that
investigations and judicial processes are ongoing in this matter and the information held is
directly relevant to these.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring disclosure:
Promoting public understanding of this high-profile case and the length of time that the
investigation has taken.
Promoting transparency and accountability; of West Yorkshire Police and of the PCC.
Promoting transparency in the PCC holding the Chief Constable to account and ensuring that
the police are effective.
Factors against disclosure:
Harm to the judicial process, which is ongoing (as identified in the prejudice test), by
revealing details of suspects and evidence in advance of the conclusion of the investigation.
Harm to public confidence in the criminal justice system by revealing sensitive information in
advance of the conclusion of the judicial process.
Balancing
On balance the factors against disclosure are weighted greater than those in favour in all
circumstances of this case. Some information is being disclosed which identifies the general
parameters of the investigation, however, information which is specific to allegations or to evidence
has been redacted so as to prevent prejudice to law enforcement.
Section 31(1)(c) – Law Enforcement
Information is exempt if its disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice.
Terms of reference relating to Lancashire Constabulary’s investigation of conduct matters arising
from an investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) into the awarding of vehicle
contracts has been withheld from this disclosure.
Civil proceedings have been intimated and issued against the PCC in relation to this investigation in
which the misconduct investigation and publication of the subsequent report are in issue which
means that S31 is engaged.
This exemption requires a prejudice test. Disclosure of the terms of reference (which are replicated
in the investigation report which is being contended as part of the action against the PCC) would
prejudice the administration of justice as the case is ongoing and relates, in part, to publication of
the report. Disclosure of part of the report, at this stage, will prejudice the administration of justice
and restrict the remedies available to the court.
This exemption also requires a public interest test which has been conducted as follows:
Factors in favour of disclosure:
Promoting public understanding of this case.
Promoting transparency in the PCC holding the Chief Constable to account and ensuring that
the police are effective.
Promoting public understanding of, and confidence in, the way that conduct matters are
dealt with in the police service.
Factors against disclosure:
Prejudice to the administration of justice by impacting on the ability of the parties and the
court to consider the issues at claim and from exercising their rights.
Prejudice to the administration of justice by undermining the jurisdiction of the court or by
pre-judging the outcome of proceedings or any application made within the proceedings.
Balancing
On balance it is found that the arguments against disclosure are weighted more heavily than those in
favour of disclosure given the very strong public interest in allowing civil proceedings to take their
course.
Section 43(2) – Commercial Interests
Information is exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice
commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).
Documents 5 and 6 refer to a commercial interest and this has been redacted on the basis of the
following public interest test:
Factors in favour of disclosure:
Transparency and accountability in the way the police manage commercial interests or
relationships.
Transparency and accountability in the way that the police operate procurement processes
generally.
Factors against disclosure:
Reputational damage to the commercial interests of a third party, particularly given the
competitive market in which the party operates.
Balancing
On balance the factor against disclosure is weighted greater than those in favour of disclosure given
that the redacted information relates only to the third party name; all other information relating to
this exchange is being provided and the factors in favour of disclosure, therefore, are being fulfilled.
I trust that you are satisfied with this disclosure, however, should you wish to request a review of
this response please write to the OPCC as detailed on the attached appeals procedure.
Yours faithfully
Julie Reid
Business Support Manager
Officer of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire